Case Detail
| Case Title | PRISOLOGY v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv00969 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-06-08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2014-11-17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Amy Berman Jackson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | PRISOLOGY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Prisology, a non-profit organization that advocates for prison reform, filed suit against the Bureau of Prisons alleging the agency had failed to post a number of categories of records required to be made available electronically by the EFOIA Amendments. Complaint issues: Affirmative disclosure | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 15-5003 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [14] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that Prisology, a Texas non-profit organization that advocates for criminal justice reform, does not have standing to bring a FOIA suit charging that the Bureau of Prisons violated the EFOIA provision requiring agencies to make subsection (a)(2) records available by computer telecommunications because it has not shown that it suffered an injury-in-fact from the agency's failure to provide such records electronically. Jackson pointed out that Prisology's claim was that "since FOIA grants a legal right to access the records in question, defendant's interference with that rightâ€"through the refusal to publish those recordsâ€"gives rise to an injury for Article III purposes." But Jackson observed that was insufficient for standing purposes. "Here, plaintiff has failed to point to any injuries sustained, by the organization itself or its members, as a result of defendant's conduct. . .While plaintiff explains in its opposition that it 'accomplishes its mission through various projects, which includes information dissemination to the public via social media and other mediums about criminal justice practices,' it has alleged no facts that would enable a court to conclude that plaintiff has been harmed by defendant's conduct in any concrete or particularized way." Jackson acknowledged the D.C. Circuit's observation that standing in a FOIA suit required only a denial of requested information, but she pointed out that "in that process, it observed that it is a particular request for particular information that confers standing upon a FOIA plaintiff, and that there is no need for proof of further injury caused by the denial of a request. But that language involving the actual denial of a specific request for particular material is not sufficiently broad to cover plaintiff's grievance here about how defendant is complying with the law in general." She concluded that "because plaintiff has failed to assert an actual or imminent particularized injury, it lacks standing to bring this case, and the Court must dismiss plaintiff's FOIA claim." However, in a footnote Jackson provided some suggestions about how a plaintiff like Prisology might show standing. She noted that "the Court agrees that agencies are required by section 552(a)(2) to make certain documents available without any FOIA request. However, the filing of such a requestâ€"and its subsequent denial by the agencyâ€"may provide evidence of the injury suffered by that party relevant to its standing to bring suit."
Issues: Affirmative disclosure, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
